Fairway Bunkers - ET/PGA

We've had some debate on here recently about the difference in course set-up, for the Et tour and PGA tour. Recently at Torrey Pines Phil was last in fairways hit and 2nd best in greens in regulation, which seems to be a joke really. The 4 Desert Swing events have shown that finding fairway bunkers can be penal and in many cases cost a shot, whilst the PGA courses seem to be the opposite, and indeed many fairway bunkers are easier than the fairway. I appreciate that courses over the pond are set up differently and target golf is the norm, but would suspect that the Yanks may struggle coming to terms with the majority of ET tracks.

Its true that in general PGA tour bunkers from fairways seem to be a hell of a lot easier to play from as many have shallower faces or a very low lip compared to many ET course setups

I think the AT&T this week alone show cased how many guys on the PGA tour can struggle in real fairway bunkers, Pebble has some proper fairway bunkers unlike many courses stateside, and there were a fair few guys who left shots in them as they were not used to having a lip or high face,

Having a hazard (bunker) which improves your chances of hitting greens is poor course design. Everyone wants to see skillful bunker play but having bunkers without lips is poor. A bunker should be like a good woman - great lips and deep!!!

puligny wrote:Having a hazard (bunker) which improves your chances of hitting greens is poor course design. Everyone wants to see skillful bunker play but having bunkers without lips is poor. A bunker should be like a good woman - great lips and deep!!!

Best quote ever

puligny wrote:Having a hazard (bunker) which improves your chances of hitting greens is poor course design. Everyone wants to see skillful bunker play but having bunkers without lips is poor. A bunker should be like a good woman - great lips and deep!!!

Depends how it's done. If it's a natural thing due to the green elevation or the ground falling into the bunker then yes. If it's a lip which is built up purely to provide a hazard then it looks, feels and plays out of character for the place.

Much like Rochford hundred and the dodgy mound they have in the middle of a fairway there.

Puligny
So why do the USPGA do it - are they trying to make their pro's look like steller players compared to Joe Average watching at home? I think it would be much better to let Joe Public see them mess up and be like the rest of us from time to time.

Doc wrote:Puligny
So why do the USPGA do it - are they trying to make their pro's look like steller players compared to Joe Average watching at home? I think it would be much better to let Joe Public see them mess up and be like the rest of us from time to time.

Question then.

How often do you hit the green from a fairway bunker? Even if it has no lip at all

Doc - I think it is lazy architecture and/or cheaper to maintain. So many of the "sand traps" there are for aesthetic reasons and do not constitute hazards. When you are better off in a hazard than the second cut off the fairway it ceases to be a hazard.

LJ from flat bunkers no problem at all - it is as you know a relatively easy and to some extent controllable shot. The ball certainly isn't going to run far on the green played from a fairway bunker is it?

I believe that 50% of the time recovery to the green should be impractical from fairway bunkers - and should take more skill than currently demonstrated.

Puligny.

I'm not sure that no problem at all is entirely accurate.

There are lots of courses which put firm shallow sand in their bunkers so it's just playing off of hardpan really. But there are others that set the fairway bunkers up as a hazard regardless of the lip. Deep soft sand which takes all the power off the strike unless it's perfect and also allows the ball to settle making it very hard to get any sort of pure strike.

I suspect you're playing some very poorly setup courses if the bunkers are never a hazard to you. Incidentally... I'm not just referring to the 100 yard shot... but a fairway bunker from 190+ from the green.

From faceless bunkers/lowlipped have to say im confident i can hit the green everytime, but I have to say I think that bunkers on fairways should penalise the player in having to splash out unless there is another hazard between you and the hole, then a low lipped one can be good as it tempts you to go for it.

One course in my local area actually filled in a couple of the low lipped fairway bunkers they;d had for years as the did nothing aesthetically for the course nor did they provide any challenge to the golfers

LJ - the courses I play are very high quality - come and have a go. One is noted for the difficulty of its fairway bunkers because they are small, and the chances of being impeded are high - but it is an old course, much of it now 120 years old. My point is general about fairway bunkers. On many, particularly modern courses, they are of less value than they should be. I agree with you about soft sand though even then with no lip the shot is relatively easy. Of course it is possible to duff it, but it is from anywhere?
The question posed her is specifically about ET and PGA tours. Many fairway bunkers on the PGA tour represent an advantage over the deep rough which often surrounds them. Also because many of them are so big (aesthetics of golf course design) the chances of being impeded even by a shallow lip are reduced, and players regularly ping it straight to the green with plenty of stop when playing from them. It isn't only around the green they shout "get in the bunker!"

How often are bunkers actually fairway bunkers, it is not a fairway bunker if it is surrounded by rough. You need to mow the fairways a lot wider to bring the bunkers fully into play.

I know some of you will think me old fashioned, but I think fairway bunkers should mean a pretty certain lost shot. They should be placed at the right length but slightly off line to catch a semi wayward but well hit drive. They should maker the golfer think and manage the course, hitting short if necessary and if in the sand, then the longest iron possible should a 5 iron, or a 7 wood. Some of the best fairway bunkers come in threes, one after the other with the back two hidden.

Mind you, there should also be an occasional risk and reward fairway bunker that pays well for the golfer who takes it on, but it should be at the limit.

I suspect that a lot of older courses have the bunkers too short now because of ball and shaft technology.

Dunno about that either Shanker. Some bunkers should clearly be penal. Others not as they can protect you from even worse trouble. I think it's one of the Jones boys thats big on what he terms 'friendly bunkers' (could be Nicklaus).


Also a lot of people these days have a very high launch angle (I'm one of them as you know) and the lips are less of a problem. As long as you're not right under them.

I'm with oldshanker, it should be a borderline certain lost shot in many cases - particularly for tour courses where a legitimate challenge is supposed to be present. Obviously sticking that sort of setup in a regular club course could be a recipe for disaster if the hazards are too numerous, but as a general rule at the highest level, fairway bunkers should be a genuine hazard to avoid. And...

LondonJonnyO wrote:There are lots of courses which put firm shallow sand in their bunkers so it's just playing off of hardpan really. But there are others that set the fairway bunkers up as a hazard regardless of the lip. Deep soft sand which takes all the power off the strike unless it's perfect and also allows the ball to settle making it very hard to get any sort of pure strike.

...that would be a very good way of assuring it. Removing power from the strike, so that from a certain distance out you've got nearly no chance of making the green, and any attempt to do so requires such precision that it's almost not worth going for. It'd certainly encourage better course management, and remove the temptation to let it rip off the tee every single time, without being concerned for lie or hazards. LJ, I see your point, but what do you mean by bunkers protecting from worse trouble?

Silver wrote:LJ, I see your point, but what do you mean by bunkers protecting from worse trouble?

A friendly bunker is one which is positioned so that if you are offline it stops you going further into trouble. A bunker between a raised green and a water hazard is friendly in that if you come up short of the green you're not rolling back into the water. It gives you a chance to redeem yourself with an up and down.

A good example is the bunker short of the 12th on Augusta National. If you come up short online with that bunker you're safe. Anywhere else you're looking at a 4, 5 or even more with a nasty pitch. Unless you're Freddie Couples. Then you're gonna superglue the ball on the bank. :606laugh:

Wish I had some of that magic thanks for clearing it up LJ. I guess bunkers strategically positioned like that are part and parcel, although shouldn't they also still be fairly harsh to get out of, given they've saved you from a guaranteed shot pen?

Silver wrote:Wish I had some of that magic thanks for clearing it up LJ. I guess bunkers strategically positioned like that are part and parcel, although shouldn't they also still be fairly harsh to get out of, given they've saved you from a guaranteed shot pen?

Generally bunkers will cost you a shot anyway.

Look at the average sand saves for the pros. It's around 50-60%. That's not a high number of saves. I think I'm pretty good from the sand.... If I get up and down 40% of the time I'll be very happy with that!

The typical amateur will take 3 or more from a greenside trap. And from a fairway trap I rarely see someone get it more than 50 or 60 yards unless they are a particularly stable swinger of the club.

But then as I say earlier... the course I currently play puts very soft very deep sand in their fairway traps.

LondonJonnyO wrote:Dunno about that either Shanker. Some bunkers should clearly be penal. Others not as they can protect you from even worse trouble. I think it's one of the Jones boys thats big on what he terms 'friendly bunkers' (could be Nicklaus).


Also a lot of people these days have a very high launch angle (I'm one of them as you know) and the lips are less of a problem. As long as you're not right under them.

Not so sure I like the idea of friendly bunkers (unless they save me of course). :lol: If they are there to stop you from going into a worse hazard, what is the sense of having that hazard in the first place!

And your second quote just confirms my point about some bunkers are now redundant because of ball and shaft technology.

However, I do take your point about the aesthetics or lack of, if to make a bunker a penalty it has to be a huge gash with a built up lip that looks completely out of place.
I think it was SJ who made the point elsewhere about just leaving some fairway uncut and having a broad swathe of umbala across it, to bring holes back to the 'length' they were built to be, so golfers would be using more long irons into the green.

Where do people stand on that idea?

Shanker.

Think back to when you played Woolston Manor with me... The 13th is an island fairway and then an island green (except over the back).... It's a no miss hole.

As you approach the green the only 'safe' shot is on the surface or behind the green. Which is then a nightmare. Except long left. There is water there. But between the green and the water is a small bunker. If you hit the green in that corner and bounce through the bunker catches the ball. You will have a nightmare bunker shot from a small trap with a downhill lie usually... to a green above you and sloping away to a water hazard not far away... but you will be saved from a penalty being applied to a shot that really wasn't that bad. It was just a touch aggressive on a dangerous line.

You will usually take 3 or 4 more from that bunker. But at least you won't lose the ball and be given a chance at redemption.

It's a friendly bunker.

LondonJonnyO wrote:Look at the average sand saves for the pros. It's around 50-60%. That's not a high number of saves. I think I'm pretty good from the sand.... If I get up and down 40% of the time I'll be very happy with that!

It's a fair point. I guess the guys we see week in, week out on the box just make it look easier than it actually is! I think I was placing too much consideration on the difficulty of the bunker as a standalone element - purely how tough it actually is to get out of, rather than taking into account what it'd do to your ability to get up and down. Actual hazard placement is more important than I thought - same as tee/pin. On that note, I reckon more courses should adapt the style of your own, and soften up the bunkers to make it less tempting to give it a lash from the fairway hazards.

oldshanker: I'm not for it, though I'm not entirely sure why. Seems like a good idea in principle as it'd solve the distance problem that's been thrown around a fair bit here, but...too artificial, maybe?

I wouldn't mind putting rough in the fairways to create layup areas to bring the design of the hole back into play... but would leave the rough at a distance that made it a risk/reward hazard so that you could carry it if you hit a perfect shot leaving a hole that could be bum-raped.

I'd tend to do it on the par 5's though in order to bring distance control and wedge play back into the fore. Look at when we played Smithers course. Two monster par 5 holes and I hit the first one with a 250 2 iron (more or less) and the second with a 230 yard 3 iron (again a foot off the green)

If there had been some nasty tangly stuff at around 290 ish I'd have thought twice about hitting the driver and would then have been pretty much out of range.


It wouldn't be a bad thing to make the par 5's play as par 5s. Unless there is something really dangerous on them.... Most long hitters are having a rip knowing they can recover with a couple of wedges worst way.

LJ yeees but...no but......yeah but, if you take 3-4 shots to get out of the bunker, then it would have been better to go into the supposed worse hazard and taken a 1 shot penalty. That doesn't seem to stack up!

oldshanker wrote:LJ yeees but...no but......yeah but, if you take 3-4 shots to get out of the bunker, then it would have been better to go into the supposed worse hazard and taken a 1 shot penalty. That doesn't seem to stack up!

Thats why it's a friendly hazard.

It saves you from the immediate penalty of a lost ball, a drop and then a pitch over water... which is 3 shots at least. It gives you a slim chance of redemption. Whilst remaining difficult enough that it still presents a challenge.


And I could have worded that more effectively. I meant 3 or 4 to get down from the sand.

I get the friendly hazard thing now. It is the dichotomy of the two words.

Friendly - it stops you from rolling into the water, umbala etc

Hazard - it bites back by being a nasty little oh dear in its own rite.

I haven't forgotten those long irons of yours either, and agree that any cross fairway rough should be risk or reward, but it would need to be a real gamble and probably not achievable from the Tiger tees.

Hah - I like the way my naughty word was replaced with an 'oh dear'. Lovely. 8)

Yeah. I like my long irons... in fact all my irons.

I think the big thing that's changed over the last few years, especially on the more established older courses, is the placement of fairway bunkers. They were set up as a risk and reward option to entice the mid to low handicapper. Due to technology improvements the low handicapper will clear this 'hazard' easily and so too will many mid-handicappers, or at least be accurate enough to miss it. So in fact many of these 'hazards' are now redundant, but still come into play for high handicappers. It costs money to fill these traps in and even more money to move them. So maybe these courses should encourage the rough to encroach into the fairway at a stategic point, making players think before firing one down. We've all seen fairway bunkers which seem pointless as the only balls they catch are a scuffed tee shot, maybe. The norm is for the ball to fly way beyond.

My home club is only in it's 6th year and bunker placement was key to the design, with fairway bunkers being in the correct(ish) spot. Two holes were slightly changed last year: one had a fairway bunker added to collect the balls of longer hitters who attempted to go for the green off the yellow tees, and another hole had rough allowed to encroach into a fairway to force longer hitters to think before attempting to cut a corner. So in only 6-years we've had to change 2-holes, whereas many clubs haven't bothered.

As LJ said earlier, not many players can bang it out of fairway bunkers more than 60 yards, if the bunker is set up as a proper hazard. many courses seem to have lost the concept of risk and reward

Not sure Dustin Johnston would agree with the view that fairway bunkers on the PGA tour don't cost you a shot or two

Bob_the_Job wrote:Not sure Dustin Johnston would agree with the view that fairway bunkers on the PGA tour don't cost you a shot or two

The bunkers didn't cost him any shots, his inability to read the local rules however DID!

Maverick wrote:

Bob_the_Job wrote:Not sure Dustin Johnston would agree with the view that fairway bunkers on the PGA tour don't cost you a shot or two

The bunkers didn't cost him any shots, his inability to read the local rules however DID!

A good point, well presented

Cheer bob!